Questions on micropolitical subjectivism & frameworks

First off, bounded rationality: this concept I came across in another form in computational linguistics. In the late 19th century, Benjamin Whorf and Edward Sapir put forth their eponymous hypothesis that “the difference in the significance of languages is the difference in the significance of the perceptions of its speakers.” In '57, Chomsky came up with universal grammar: all languages are accompanied by psychological nativism and a poverty of the stimulus.

These rules struck at the heart of the empiricist position of language acquisition. So, by being born with preset capabilities, are we also beset by preset deficiencies that limit the scope of our successes? Here, we come to bounded rationalism as an immediate consequence of the existence of a universal grammar - and perhaps also to Nietzsche's 'Amor fati'. But this is a purely psychosocial argument.

Secondly, structuralism and rationalist theory: here, mathematics avails a solution I've been fond of in the past—John Nash's game theory. Herbert Simon's three steps to arrive at a decision are identification of alternatives, consequences of alternatives, and evaluation of relevance of consequences. All three are modeled on the necessity of a stable system, the condition that finite variables exist, and the condition that only a finite number of consequences are possible. In that case,

1. Does the macropolitical structure transform into a metastructure when it comes to assessing the symbolism of a micropolitical reality?


2. What does that entail?


3. If it doesn't, then is the new mediator subjectivism?


4. In that case, is the purpose of subjectivist knowledge to reconcile the self-reflexive identity against the backdrop of a macropolitical entity?


5. Or, is subjective knowledge purely a micropolitical issue?

This, I think, leads to Carnap's question: can ontological questions have objective answers? Here, as an engineer, I'm reminded of metaphysical naturalism as well.

Finally, the question I find most pressing is whether or not it is necessary for us to adopt a framework - a structuralist tool - in the context of which we view this world. For example, consider the statement "The sun rises in the east after it has set in the west." This means that an eastern sunrise follows a western sunset, ergo there's east and west and there's a sun. All these answers are within the framework of the statement.

However, a question like "Is there really a sun?" prompts us to question the validity of the framework itself, thereby asking us to step outside and evaluate it. Now, how do we evaluate it?

Questions on micropolitical subjectivism & frameworks

First off, bounded rationality: this concept I came across in another form in computational linguistics. In the late 19th century, Benjamin Whorf and Edward Sapir put forth their eponymous hypothesis that “the difference in the significance of languages is the difference in the significance of the perceptions of its speakers.” In '57, Chomsky came up with universal grammar: all languages are accompanied by psychological nativism and a poverty of the stimulus.

These rules struck at the heart of the empiricist position of language acquisition. So, by being born with preset capabilities, are we also beset by preset deficiencies that limit the scope of our successes? Here, we come to bounded rationalism as an immediate consequence of the existence of a universal grammar - and perhaps also to Nietzsche's 'Amor fati'. But this is a purely psychosocial argument.

Secondly, structuralism and rationalist theory: here, mathematics avails a solution I've been fond of in the past—John Nash's game theory. Herbert Simon's three steps to arrive at a decision are identification of alternatives, consequences of alternatives, and evaluation of relevance of consequences. All three are modeled on the necessity of a stable system, the condition that finite variables exist, and the condition that only a finite number of consequences are possible. In that case,

1. Does the macropolitical structure transform into a metastructure when it comes to assessing the symbolism of a micropolitical reality?


2. What does that entail?


3. If it doesn't, then is the new mediator subjectivism?


4. In that case, is the purpose of subjectivist knowledge to reconcile the self-reflexive identity against the backdrop of a macropolitical entity?


5. Or, is subjective knowledge purely a micropolitical issue?

This, I think, leads to Carnap's question: can ontological questions have objective answers? Here, as an engineer, I'm reminded of metaphysical naturalism as well.

Finally, the question I find most pressing is whether or not it is necessary for us to adopt a framework - a structuralist tool - in the context of which we view this world. For example, consider the statement "The sun rises in the east after it has set in the west." This means that an eastern sunrise follows a western sunset, ergo there's east and west and there's a sun. All these answers are within the framework of the statement.

However, a question like "Is there really a sun?" prompts us to question the validity of the framework itself, thereby asking us to step outside and evaluate it. Now, how do we evaluate it?

An exploration of Tormont: Episode I

When I finally awakened from my drug-induced stupor, the first things I noticed were the Adenacra Globules, the nearest a mere mile from the high balcony we were all lined up in. The massive sphere, almost a mile in diameter, was already being caressed by two, three probing tentacles, each long and spindly arm culminating with what I could only say was a powerful spark plug. Having been a matter of legend for all these years, witnessing the gawdy monstrosity from close quarters was a disillusional experience—for one, it meant that divinity was no longer just the content of contentious debates; for another, it meant that we were looking at history with irreversibly wrong perspectives. One way or another, on that day, I became the prisoner I am still, and over the course of these months, it has become an uncharacteristically easy choice between asserting my existence as a Senator of Sepulchra, where I am from, against asserting my liberation from its ideological throes by "getting distilled into a higher plane", as it were. I now serve in Heaven, and I do not lament the loss of kingship.

The Adenacra Globule C-3144K—named for its size (C), cardinality (3144) and function (K)—was responsible for a small star-system in the Japonica Drift, and even as we watched, a fourth tentacle unattached itself from the spine-mounted quiver and extended itself to the shimmering blue surface. A Tormontell—a race of people we had known earlier by the more ubiquitous name of "Gods"—archiver stood before us, a little under 12-feet tall, surveying the array before his/her eyes (we had no way to tell the men from the women), his/her coal-black eyes hidden behind taut epicanthal folds, dull grey hair cascading down his/her shoulders. I could tell he/she was an archiver by the flowing mud-brown ropes he/she was garbed in, trapped gently around the waist by a broad probably-wooden belt-band.

It was raining on Tormont.

Ave homo!

Hail man!

Hail the finitude of his beauty and hail the beauty of his finitude!

Hail this good earth whose soil he tills and with whose water he fills the gut of his hungry flesh, the abyssal infinity of his mind with wonders aplenty!

Hail the vessels of iron and wood upon whose steadfast crest he sails the tempestuous depths of the ocean!

Hail the star-studded tunic of the Universe within whose melancholic brilliance lies bounteous journeys—hail the reward of destinations thereupon!

Hail the words of man's creation never to be found in the shadow of an insensate rock or in the tracheae of obdurate mountains!

Hail the eloquence of his discourse that, by the will of its cause, births both good and evil, virtue and vice!

Hail the destinies he charts unto himself and remains lost in the grip of his selfsame foibles, for therewith upon that heaving bosom rest the pages of his histories!

Hail, in the name of trade, the various measures of courtesy he extends to his fellow man for the sake of their gold!

Hail, above all else, that he doth understand the democracy of his faith, for the election of his allegiance follows from the election of his humanity!

Agere sequitur esse, agere sequitur credere, fides probantur ens. Ave homo!